Syllabus: GS- II & V: Judiciary

Why in the news?

• The Gauhati High Court has issued an interim order banning buffalo fights (Moh Juj) in Assam and directed authorities to take penal action against organisers, citing violation of animal protection laws.

Background: Cultural Context

• Buffalo fights and bulbul fights are traditionally associated with Magh Bihu (Bhogali Bihu).
• Major centres:
  • Ahatguri (Nagaon district) for buffalo fights.
  • Hayagriva Madhab Temple, Hajo for bulbul fights.
• These practices have centuries-old roots, linked to agrarian celebrations and community gatherings.

Legal Framework Involved

• Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
  • Prohibits causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals.
  • Section 22 bans use of certain animals for performance.
• Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
  • Protects species like bulbuls (Schedule II).
  • Bulbul fights are illegal under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
  • Defines “hunting” broadly, including capturing and baiting.
• Supreme Court Judgements
  • 2014 (A. Nagaraja case): Banned use of bulls in events like jallikattu.
  • 2023 Judgement: Allowed jallikattu, kambala etc. only after state amendments with Presidential assent.

Key Issue Before the Court

• The Assam government issued Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in December 27, 2023 which allowed buffalo and bulbul bird fights during a specific period in January.
• PETA India challenged these SOPs citing cruelty and legal violations.

Court’s Observations

• Executive instructions cannot override central laws.
• Unlike Tamil Nadu or Karnataka, Assam did not amend the law but issued guidelines.
• Buffalo fights violate the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
• Hence, the Court ordered a complete halt until further orders.

Key Terms Explained

• Moh Juj: Traditional buffalo fighting event during Magh Bihu.
• Performing Animals: Animals trained or exhibited for entertainment.
• Animal Welfare Jurisprudence: Legal principles focusing on protection of animal rights.

Debate: Culture vs Law

• In favour of ban:
  • Prevents cruelty and aligns with Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and constitutional duty (Article 48 A & 51A(g)).
  • In line with Supreme Court judgments in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja (2014) and Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (2023).
• Against ban:
  • Seen as an erosion of traditional cultural practices.

Way Forward

• If cultural practices are to continue, states must:
  • Bring legislative amendments with safeguards.
  • Ensure strict animal welfare compliance.
• Promote non-violent cultural alternatives.

Exam Hook

Key Takeaways

• Executive orders cannot override statutory laws.
• Cultural practices must comply with animal welfare norms.
• Federal structure requires a proper legislative route for exceptions.

Mains Question:
“Balancing cultural traditions with animal rights is a key governance challenge in India.” Discuss with reference to recent judicial interventions.

One-line wrap: The Gauhati High Court’s ban underscores that cultural traditions must operate within the framework of constitutional morality and animal welfare laws.

Source